Paul Goble
Staunton,
January 19 – Belsat has reposted a commentary by Russian blogger Viktor Nikitenko
to make a point that should not have to be argued but that must be because
Vladimir Putin and so many people in Russia and the West think otherwise: Belarusians
and Russians aren’t one people and no political arrangements will change that.
Nikitenko
posted on Facebook his observations about the differences between the two
nations in 2017 (facebook.com/nikitsenka/posts/1356812907765305?_rdc=2&_rdr);
but as the editors of Belsat say in reposting them now, they may be even more
important now than they were then (charter97.org/ru/news/2019/1/18/320412/).
The blogger stresses that what he
argues reflects his personal observations and experiences rather than “doubtful
texts from thick books about the history of the appearance of the two peoples.”
Such observations and experiences are far more important for an understanding
of how members of each actually behave.
“The chief facto distinguishing a
Russian from a Belarusian,” Nikitenko says, “is the powerful emotionalism of
the former and in addition his maximalism and extremes in judgement.” The Belarusian
in this sense is “the antipode of the Russian: he is pragmatic, quiet,, doesn’t
like extremes, and seldom gives way to radical changes in his point of view.
Russians are far more inclined that
Russians to following ideas and slogans blindly without considering where they
are headed. Belarusians, in contrast, are skeptical about all such ideas and
slogans and seldom change, being deeply conservative and as such suspicious not
only of other ideas but often of other people.
The two people do share a tendency
to deify their leaders, but even in this regard, the blogger says, there are
important differences: the Russian is “an anarchic and unstable” worshipper of
power; the Belarusian in contrast tends to give his loyalty more slowly and
give it up more slowly as well – another aspect of his conservatism.
“Russians,” Nikitenko says, “very
much love to destroy everything old and build on the ruins something new and
are inclined to adventurism and a revolutionary method of solving problems.” Belarusians
are more inclined to stick with what they know even if they are unhappy with
it.
“It is a mistake to say that
laziness and slavery came to Belarus and Russia from Muscovy,” the blogger
observes. The personal qualities of reserve and suspiciousness among
Belarusians came not from Moscow but from neighboring Baltic nations, known for
their phlegmatic approach.
“Submissiveness, fear of truth, and
latent xenophobia are the foundation on which autocratic power in Belarus is
built. Infantalism dominates the personality of the Belarus and is immanent,”
something Belarusians often try to conceal by engaging in xenophobia,”
Nikitenko argues.
These various differences are so
profound, he continues, that it is ridiculous to talk about Belarusians and
Russians being one people. They “never were but simply lived under one big occupation
roof. The myth of unity was dreamed up by the Bolsheviks who didn’t focus on
the details of the various ethnic groups” under their control.
“Spiritual simplicity and hospitality are
an organic and inalienable part of the Russian character which is expressed
more strongly among them than among Belarusians.” The latter are more
accustomed to reserve, having been influenced in that regard by Roman
Catholicism and the Poles.
“Beyond any doubt,” he says, “Belarusians
and Russians are two different peoples; and therefore, the nationalists from
Belarus are absolutely right when they speak about the cultural-social identity
of their country.” But they sometimes neglect to note that Belarusians have
taken from the Russians some good things as well as bad.
But “in the final analysis,”
Nikitenko concludes, “Belarusians will remain Belarusians and Russians will
continue to be Russians; and this circumstance will only be strengthened by the
fact that these peoples were never a single whole and will not become one.”
No comments:
Post a Comment